Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

In summary a woman claimed she could detect a unique smell from her husband and other people who had parkinson's disease. Turned out she could, not only that she could tell someone had parkinson's before someone was actually diagnosed by medical professionals. This may lead to a tool to diagnose sufferers earlier.

I've put this in the general skepticism section as I think it provides a text book example of how a genuine but amazing claim can quickly go from extreme skepticism to being accepted. All it takes is a genuine wish for the claim to be checked, a simple but controlled test that proves the claim is right and Bob's your uncle scientists find it very exciting and start using the claim.

Provide evidence, be willing to be tested and scientists will be all over your amazing ability.

If this came up in the nineties would this have been eligible for the million dollar James Randi prize?

I don't think so, but she could have lied and said that the ghost of a person that had Parkinson's was whispering in her ear about whether or not the person had it and in that case she may have been able to qualify.

If they set the terms and she succeeded then even if they discovered the true non-paranormal cause later they'd be out the money.

If this came up in the nineties would this have been eligible for the million dollar James Randi prize?

I don't think so. The MDC was for "supernatural" or "paranormal" abilities.

There's nothing paranormal, IMHO, about the idea that someone with a disease secretes certain pheromones a normal person doesn't. Nor about the idea that this would happen before the disease has been actually diagnosed.

There's nothing paranormal either about the idea that a pheromone can be smelled by some persons but not by others. A well-known case is the smell of urine of someone who just ate asparagus.

__________________"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

I don't think so. The MDC was for "supernatural" or "paranormal" abilities.

There's nothing paranormal, IMHO, about the idea that someone with a disease secretes certain pheromones a normal person doesn't. Nor about the idea that this would happen before the disease has been actually diagnosed.

There's nothing paranormal either about the idea that a pheromone can be smelled by some persons but not by others. A well-known case is the smell of urine of someone who just ate asparagus.

This is where I get really confused. With sufficient research and time, a repeatable supernatural ability would likely identity some mechanism, right?

This is where we test ghost detection equipment. It isn't legitimate because there is no repeatable test in a lab for ghosts. But a person who passed the challenge would have a repeatable ability, and detection equipment could develop from that.

I think it might have been accepted, after all the claim that someone could hear the difference between music streamed over different network cables was, smelling a neurological condition 'sounds' as wacky as VFF seeing missing kidneys, superficially at least.

Of course it's heartening that someone who actually does have an ability that few others share and that can help other people is interested in actually using it to do so rather than making a money out of it. Mrs Milne deserves all our respect and applause for seeing this through.

As an aside, the test she used to demonstrate the ability sounds like a perfect example of how, when a person actually has the ability they claim, a test can be simple and conclusive. Not only did she do what she claimed she scored 7 out of 6 (one of the control group was diagnosed after the test).

12 people, 6 with Parkinsons, 6 control, wore t shirts that she then smelled and used to identify who was and who wasn't a sufferer. Relatively simple to organise, easy to blind and gave a clear result. Whoever designed the test deserves credit for it.

If a woman can diagnose Parkinson's by smell, then how quickly could we train up some springer spaniels? Seriously so much better at smelling than us, training a few pooches could be an awful lot quicker and cheaper than developing a skin swab.

Is there any advantage in detecting Parkinson's early? As I understand it there aren't any drugs anyway, so finding out earlier doesn't seem to give either patient or doctor any great advantage.

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Dowsing operates under the idea that there is an emanation from water that can be detected on the surface. Is that supernatural?

No, it's bollocks. We know it's bollocks, because it's been tested. No such emanation exists.

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

It is because that emanation does not exist. The claim as such is falsifiable and can be subjected to an objective test. It has been, and failed.

Hans

But before the Parkinson's smell test was at one point only a claim. If someone had come forth claiming dowsing worked, it would have been a candidate for the prize. If it succeeded, we would most likely be able to identify what those emanations are with continued testing.

So before the tests are conducted in either scenario, how do we split non supernatural from supernatural?

But before the Parkinson's smell test was at one point only a claim. If someone had come forth claiming dowsing worked, it would have been a candidate for the prize. If it succeeded, we would most likely be able to identify what those emanations are with continued testing.

So before the tests are conducted in either scenario, how do we split non supernatural from supernatural?

If a woman can diagnose Parkinson's by smell, then how quickly could we train up some springer spaniels? Seriously so much better at smelling than us, training a few pooches could be an awful lot quicker and cheaper than developing a skin swab.

Any doctor's surgery in the country can take a skin swab and get a result immediately or in a couple of days depending on how complicated the test is (a simple reagent with a long life kept on site incase it's needed or posting to a lab). Compare this to training up springers and then keeping them, with kennelling, food exercise, vet costs etc etc....

Originally Posted by MikeG

Is there any advantage in detecting Parkinson's early? As I understand it there aren't any drugs anyway, so finding out earlier doesn't seem to give either patient or doctor any great advantage.

So far, there was a very promising breakthrough announced a couple of days ago for Huntingdon's which may have implications for Altheimer's and Parkinson's, it's a treatment rather than a cure so early diagnosis allowing the treatment to start before deterioration was noticeable would be hugely advantageous.

But before the Parkinson's smell test was at one point only a claim. If someone had come forth claiming dowsing worked, it would have been a candidate for the prize. If it succeeded, we would most likely be able to identify what those emanations are with continued testing.

So before the tests are conducted in either scenario, how do we split non supernatural from supernatural?

Dowsing was considered a legitimate claim.

Smelling Parkinson was not presented.

The distinction was up to the prize management.

Hans

__________________If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.